Evaluation of the daycare mangers’ knowledge, attitude, and practice on lead in drinking water at daycares licensed by the Fraser Health Authority
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Daycares in BC fall under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act which require all daycare facilities to provide a safe environment, including drinking water. Young children who have been exposed to lead in drinking water at schools and daycares can incur serious health effects, including damage to cognitive development. Previous research has demonstrated that even low levels of blood lead concentration are associated with intellectual disability, slowed growth and development, lowered ability to concentrate, decreased academic achievement and behavioural problems. Individuals’ knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) on drinking water can influence on how the children consume drinking water and potentially cause adverse health effects. This study evaluated daycare managers’ knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) on lead in drinking water related to this issue. Method: This study was conducted by collecting 106 responses from a KAP survey to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding drinking water contaminants. The survey was distributed to daycare managers in Fraser Health region. The responses were analyzed with regression and correlation, one-way ANOVA, and chi-square tests. Results: There was a statistically significant correlation between the age of daycare manger and their knowledge (t-test = 0.0309). All other tests showed no statistical correlation, difference, and/or association (p-value greater than significance level of 0.05 on all parameters) between managerial experiences, age of managers, types of daycares in their knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding lead in drinking water in daycare facilities. The data of KAP questionnaires indicated that most daycare mangers do not fully understand and not are sufficiently educated regarding lead toxicity in drinking water. Conclusions: The results of KAP surveys showed that an educational intervention by the government or local health authorities is highly recommended and needed to improve the daycare managers’ knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding lead in drinking water. Additional research is required to confirm this.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".